5 ms·

This seems strange as a major corporation should be able to provide security to protect against death threats. And it should be the exact same security it provi

This seems strange as a major corporation should be able to provide security to protect against death threats. And it should be the exact same security it provides normally for any large employee gathering. Assuming that death threats actually took place and they were actually credible. Seems silly for a company to not be able to act because of death threats. That seems like a viable reason for an individual or a very small dev, but it seems like there’s a now a way to just stop Unity from doing stuff. Cynically, I assume they just don’t want the negative PR and wanted a reason to cancel.

majormajor 3y ago
> This seems strange as a major corporation should be able to provide security to protect against death threats. And it should be the exact same security it provides normally for any large employee gathering. "A large employee gathering" for a lot of companies happens every day in the office. How much security presence does the average office have, in your experience? In mine, the answer is not that much. I've never seen enough that I'd think the same level would be enough for death threats outside of things like defense contractors or military. Everywhere else it would be pretty easy to walk in, shoot the front desk people, take their badge, go anywhere in the building.
- prepend 3y ago
  My current employer has armed security guards. It’s pretty big with over 10,000 people with each physical location having 1,000+. Guards check badges and vehicles. Before that I worked for a fortune 100 company and our regional office was in a shared office building that had receptionists and 1-2 armed guards who kind of roamed. They weren’t always visible but they were usually in the lobby. And I worked for startups they had no one at all and just a door with a key and then keycard scanner. I’ve visited google and Microsoft’s campuses and they have pretty strict security. So I think it’s a size and budget thing. It would be extremely difficult to walk into my employer, shoot the front desk people and take their badge.
dekhn 3y ago
There's a reason people use the phrase "out of an abundance of caution": it means they don't really think the risk is significant enough to do anything, but they know they'll be blamed if something goes wrong after they didn't cancel.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > they know they'll be blamed if something goes wrong after they didn't cancel Also you don’t want that on your conscience? Your colleagues’ lives and wellbeing against a corporate town hall.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    If you give in to terrorists, the terrorists win. We have to have some amount of bravery in the face of implausible risks.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > We have to have some amount of bravery in the face of implausible risks It’s a video game engine. They help make video games. They’re sending employees home, to continue working from home, and cancelling a town hall. These are stupid stakes to gamble against lives while a death threat is being investigated.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        Yeah, sorry, unless I had more details in the articles that could convince me that the threat was credible, I'm going to fall back on my reasonable assumption that there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk Which is fine for you, a bystander with no impact. If you’re management, on the other hand, you don’t get to wait for evidence of credibility. Because that evidence may come in blood-stained walls.
blululu 3y ago
What hell is this? Private security can try to detain and deter people who are acting out of line but they are not equipped or legally able to deal with lethal force. That is a job for the police. This incident highlights just how rare it is that people make these kind of threats and how disruptive they can be. But there is also a clear moral imperative to take action when lives are being threatened, and this is exactly why we have taxes and laws and police.
- pjlegato 3y ago
  Licensed private security guards who are armed, trained, and legally able to deal with lethal force are common all over the world.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > private security guards who are armed, trained, and legally able to deal with lethal force are common all over the world Not in most of the developed world. And legally, rarely in America. For that [EDIT: dealing lethal force] you need to hire off-duty cops. And I would think thrice before working in an office that felt it needed off-duty cops on hire. (I would also vote for more police. Security is a public good.)
    - pjlegato 3y ago
      Not so. Armed security guards are indeed legal and licensed to carry firearms in almost all US states[1], as well as in almost all European Union states[2], Japan[3], Australia[4], and Canada[5]. So, in nearly the entire 'developed world,' security guards can indeed carry guns. [1] Time magazine even wrote about this a few months ago: https://time.com/6275440/insecure-private-security-replacing-police/ https://time.com/6275440/insecure-private-security-replacing... -- it says that "about 30" states even allow guards to be licensed as "private police" with full arrest powers. For an example, here is California's regulatory site: https://www.bsis.ca.gov/industries/guard.shtml https://www.bsis.ca.gov/industries/guard.shtml -- California, one of the most notoriously anti-gun states -- allows properly licensed security guards to arrest people, as well as to carry tear gas, batons, and firearms. [2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/use-firearms-private-security-personnel-european-countries-marius https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/use-firearms-private-security... [3] https://dannychoo.com/archive/en/posts/firearms-in-japan https://dannychoo.com/archive/en/posts/firearms-in-japan [4] https://multisectraining.edu.au/do-security-guards-carry-weapons-in-nsw/ https://multisectraining.edu.au/do-security-guards-carry-wea... [5] https://novage.ms/canadian-laws-security-guards-need-to-know-about/ https://novage.ms/canadian-laws-security-guards-need-to-know...
ethanbond 3y ago
How about it seems silly to issue death threats over something so unfuckingbelievably inane? from the outside, the gaming universe seems to be comprised of some of the most atrocious people on the planet. Astounding levels of vitriol/violence/crybaby behavior, week after week in the news.
- rendall 3y ago
  It's really silly. Also silly: forgetting that a group is not its worst members. Remember that every single group with which you identify has had unstable members who behaved badly. Whether criminal behavior, death threat, bullying, or plain poor decisions, there are reprehensible people who superficially share your interests, appearance, background, or gender.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Although you can't judge a group on its worst members, the average of the gaming community isn't exactly great. I mean, have you joined the voice chat for a popular shooter recently? There is a lot of vitriol and crybaby behaviour.
    - rendall 3y ago
      Consider the availability bias: extremes are notable (easily recalled), and so become outsized in evaluations. Example: It is likely that any given random violent crime was committed by a man. Some are therefore convinced that all men are violent on average, even though it is quite unlikely for any random man to be violent.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    It's also silly to think that all qualities, good or bad, are evenly distributed between groups
    - rendall 3y ago
      Did GP say this? Argue against what a person says not against some easier-to-argue position.

majormajor 3y ago

> This seems strange as a major corporation should be able to provide security to protect against death threats. And it should be the exact same security it provides normally for any large employee gathering. "A large employee gathering" for a lot of companies happens every day in the office. How much security presence does the average office have, in your experience? In mine, the answer is not that much. I've never seen enough that I'd think the same level would be enough for death threats outside of things like defense contractors or military. Everywhere else it would be pretty easy to walk in, shoot the front desk people, take their badge, go anywhere in the building.

prepend 3y ago
My current employer has armed security guards. It’s pretty big with over 10,000 people with each physical location having 1,000+. Guards check badges and vehicles. Before that I worked for a fortune 100 company and our regional office was in a shared office building that had receptionists and 1-2 armed guards who kind of roamed. They weren’t always visible but they were usually in the lobby. And I worked for startups they had no one at all and just a door with a key and then keycard scanner. I’ve visited google and Microsoft’s campuses and they have pretty strict security. So I think it’s a size and budget thing. It would be extremely difficult to walk into my employer, shoot the front desk people and take their badge.

dekhn 3y ago

There's a reason people use the phrase "out of an abundance of caution": it means they don't really think the risk is significant enough to do anything, but they know they'll be blamed if something goes wrong after they didn't cancel.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> they know they'll be blamed if something goes wrong after they didn't cancel Also you don’t want that on your conscience? Your colleagues’ lives and wellbeing against a corporate town hall.
- dekhn 3y ago
  If you give in to terrorists, the terrorists win. We have to have some amount of bravery in the face of implausible risks.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > We have to have some amount of bravery in the face of implausible risks It’s a video game engine. They help make video games. They’re sending employees home, to continue working from home, and cancelling a town hall. These are stupid stakes to gamble against lives while a death threat is being investigated.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      Yeah, sorry, unless I had more details in the articles that could convince me that the threat was credible, I'm going to fall back on my reasonable assumption that there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk Which is fine for you, a bystander with no impact. If you’re management, on the other hand, you don’t get to wait for evidence of credibility. Because that evidence may come in blood-stained walls.

blululu 3y ago

What hell is this? Private security can try to detain and deter people who are acting out of line but they are not equipped or legally able to deal with lethal force. That is a job for the police. This incident highlights just how rare it is that people make these kind of threats and how disruptive they can be. But there is also a clear moral imperative to take action when lives are being threatened, and this is exactly why we have taxes and laws and police.

pjlegato 3y ago
Licensed private security guards who are armed, trained, and legally able to deal with lethal force are common all over the world.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > private security guards who are armed, trained, and legally able to deal with lethal force are common all over the world Not in most of the developed world. And legally, rarely in America. For that [EDIT: dealing lethal force] you need to hire off-duty cops. And I would think thrice before working in an office that felt it needed off-duty cops on hire. (I would also vote for more police. Security is a public good.)
  - pjlegato 3y ago
    Not so. Armed security guards are indeed legal and licensed to carry firearms in almost all US states[1], as well as in almost all European Union states[2], Japan[3], Australia[4], and Canada[5]. So, in nearly the entire 'developed world,' security guards can indeed carry guns. [1] Time magazine even wrote about this a few months ago: https://time.com/6275440/insecure-private-security-replacing-police/ https://time.com/6275440/insecure-private-security-replacing... -- it says that "about 30" states even allow guards to be licensed as "private police" with full arrest powers. For an example, here is California's regulatory site: https://www.bsis.ca.gov/industries/guard.shtml https://www.bsis.ca.gov/industries/guard.shtml -- California, one of the most notoriously anti-gun states -- allows properly licensed security guards to arrest people, as well as to carry tear gas, batons, and firearms. [2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/use-firearms-private-security-personnel-european-countries-marius https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/use-firearms-private-security... [3] https://dannychoo.com/archive/en/posts/firearms-in-japan https://dannychoo.com/archive/en/posts/firearms-in-japan [4] https://multisectraining.edu.au/do-security-guards-carry-weapons-in-nsw/ https://multisectraining.edu.au/do-security-guards-carry-wea... [5] https://novage.ms/canadian-laws-security-guards-need-to-know-about/ https://novage.ms/canadian-laws-security-guards-need-to-know...

ethanbond 3y ago

How about it seems silly to issue death threats over something so unfuckingbelievably inane? from the outside, the gaming universe seems to be comprised of some of the most atrocious people on the planet. Astounding levels of vitriol/violence/crybaby behavior, week after week in the news.

rendall 3y ago
It's really silly. Also silly: forgetting that a group is not its worst members. Remember that every single group with which you identify has had unstable members who behaved badly. Whether criminal behavior, death threat, bullying, or plain poor decisions, there are reprehensible people who superficially share your interests, appearance, background, or gender.
- michaelt 3y ago
  Although you can't judge a group on its worst members, the average of the gaming community isn't exactly great. I mean, have you joined the voice chat for a popular shooter recently? There is a lot of vitriol and crybaby behaviour.
  - rendall 3y ago
    Consider the availability bias: extremes are notable (easily recalled), and so become outsized in evaluations. Example: It is likely that any given random violent crime was committed by a man. Some are therefore convinced that all men are violent on average, even though it is quite unlikely for any random man to be violent.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  It's also silly to think that all qualities, good or bad, are evenly distributed between groups
  - rendall 3y ago
    Did GP say this? Argue against what a person says not against some easier-to-argue position.